[Congressional Record Volume 145, Number 151 (Monday, November 1, 1999)]
[House]
[Pages H11162-H11170]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
ELECTRONIC SIGNATURES IN GLOBAL AND NATIONAL COMMERCE ACT
Mr. BLILEY. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the
bill (H.R. 1714) to facilitate the use of electronic records and
signatures in interstate or foreign commerce, as amended.
The Clerk read as follows:
H.R. 1714
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the ``Electronic Signatures in
Global and National Commerce Act''.
TITLE I--VALIDITY OF ELECTRONIC RECORDS AND SIGNATURES FOR COMMERCE
SEC. 101. GENERAL RULE OF VALIDITY.
(a) General Rule.--With respect to any contract, agreement,
or record entered into or provided in, or affecting,
interstate or foreign commerce, notwithstanding any statute,
regulation, or other rule of law, the legal effect, validity,
or enforceability of such contract, agreement, or record
shall not be denied--
(1) on the ground that the contract, agreement, or record
is not in writing if the contract, agreement, or record is an
electronic record; or
(2) on the ground that the contract, agreement, or record
is not signed or is not affirmed by a signature if the
contract, agreement, or record is signed or affirmed by an
electronic signature.
(b) Autonomy of Parties in Commerce.--
(1) In general.--With respect to any contract, agreement,
or record entered into or provided in, or affecting,
interstate or foreign commerce--
(A) the parties to such contract, agreement, or record may
establish procedures or requirements regarding the use and
acceptance of electronic records and electronic signatures
acceptable to such parties;
(B) the legal effect, validity, or enforceability of such
contract, agreement, or record shall not be denied because of
the type or method of electronic record or electronic
signature selected by the parties in establishing such
procedures or requirements; and
(C) nothing in this section requires any party to use or
accept electronic records or electronic signatures.
(2) Consent to electronic records.--Notwithstanding
subsection (a) and paragraph (1) of this subsection--
(A) if a statute, regulation, or other rule of law requires
that a record be provided or made available to a consumer in
writing, that requirement shall be satisfied by an electronic
record if--
(i) the consumer has separately and affirmatively consented
to the provision or availability of such record, or
identified groups of records that that include such record,
as an electronic record; and
(ii) has not withdrawn such consent; and
(B) if such statute, regulation, or other rule of law
requires that a record be retained, that requirement shall be
satisfied if such record complies with the requirements of
subparagraphs (A) and (B) of subsection (c)(1).
(c) Retention of Contracts, Agreements, and Records.--
(1) Accuracy and accessibility.--If a statute, regulation,
or other rule of law requires that a contract, agreement, or
record be in writing or be retained, that requirement is met
by retaining an electronic record of the information in the
contract, agreement, or record that--
(A) accurately reflects the information set forth in the
contract, agreement, or record after it was first generated
in its final form as an electronic record; and
(B) remains accessible, for the period required by such
statute, regulation, or rule of law, for later reference,
transmission, and printing.
(2) Exception.--A requirement to retain a contract,
agreement, or record in accordance with paragraph (1) does
not apply to any information whose sole purpose is to enable
the contract, agreement, or record to be sent, communicated,
or received.
(3) Originals.--If a statute, regulation, or other rule of
law requires a contract, agreement, or record to be provided,
available, or retained in its original form, or provides
consequences if the contract, agreement, or record is not
provided, available, or retained in its original form, that
statute, regulation, or rule of law is satisfied by an
electronic record that complies with paragraph (1).
(4) Checks.--If a statute, regulation, or other rule of law
requires the retention of a check, that requirement is
satisfied by retention of an electronic record of all the
information on the front and back of the check in accordance
with paragraph (1).
SEC. 102. AUTHORITY TO ALTER OR SUPERSEDE GENERAL RULE.
(a) Procedure To Alter or Supersede.--Except as provided in
subsection (b), a State statute, regulation, or other rule of
law may modify, limit, or supersede the provisions of section
101 if such statute, regulation, or rule of law--
(1)(A) constitutes an enactment or adoption of the Uniform
Electronic Transactions Act as reported to the State
legislatures by the National Conference of Commissioners on
Uniform State Laws; or
(B) specifies the alternative procedures or requirements
for the use or acceptance (or both) of electronic records or
electronic signatures to establish the legal effect,
validity, or enforceability of contracts, agreements, or
records; and
(2) if enacted or adopted after the date of enactment of
this Act, makes specific reference to this Act.
(b) Limitations on Alteration or Supersession.--A State
statute, regulation, or other rule of law (including an
insurance statute, regulation, or other rule of law),
regardless of its date of enactment or adoption, that
modifies, limits, or supersedes section 101 shall not be
effective to the extent that such statute, regulation, or
rule--
(1) discriminates in favor of or against a specific
technology, process, or technique of creating, storing,
generating, receiving, communicating, or authenticating
electronic records or electronic signatures;
[[Page H11163]]
(2) discriminates in favor of or against a specific type or
size of entity engaged in the business of facilitating the
use of electronic records or electronic signatures;
(3) is based on procedures or requirements that are not
specific or that are not publicly available; or
(4) is otherwise inconsistent with the provisions of this
title.
(c) Exception.--Notwithstanding subsection (b), a State
may, by statute, regulation, or rule of law enacted or
adopted after the date of enactment of this Act, require
specific notices to be provided or made available in writing
if such notices are necessary for the protection of the
safety or health of an individual consumer. A consumer may
not, pursuant to section 101(b)(2), consent to the provision
or availability of such notice solely as an electronic
record.
SEC. 103. SPECIFIC EXCLUSIONS.
(a) Excepted Requirements.--The provisions of section 101
shall not apply to a contract, agreement, or record to the
extent it is governed by--
(1) a statute, regulation, or other rule of law governing
the creation and execution of wills, codicils, or
testamentary trusts;
(2) a statute, regulation, or other rule of law governing
adoption, divorce, or other matters of family law;
(3) the Uniform Commercial Code, as in effect in any State,
other than sections 1-107 and 1-206 and Articles 2 and 2A;
(4) any requirement by a Federal regulatory agency or self-
regulatory organization that records be filed or maintained
in a specified standard or standards (including a specified
format or formats), except that nothing in this paragraph
relieves any Federal regulatory agency of its obligations
under the Government Paperwork Elimination Act (title XVII of
Public Law 105-277);
(5) the Uniform Anatomical Gift Act; or
(6) the Uniform Health-Care Decisions Act.
(b) Additional Exceptions.--The provisions of section 101
shall not apply to--
(1) any contract, agreement, or record entered into between
a party and a State agency if the State agency is not acting
as a market participant in or affecting interstate commerce;
(2) court orders or notices, or official court documents
(including briefs, pleadings, and other writings) required to
be executed in connection with court proceedings; or
(3) any notice concerning--
(A) the cancellation or termination of utility services
(including water, heat, and power);
(B) default, acceleration, repossession, foreclosure, or
eviction, or the right to cure, under a credit agreement
secured by, or a rental agreement for, a primary residence of
an individual; or
(C) the cancellation or termination of health insurance or
benefits or life insurance benefits (excluding annuities).
SEC. 104. STUDY.
(a) Followup Study.--Within 5 years after the date of
enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Commerce, acting
through the Assistant Secretary for Communications and
Information, shall conduct an inquiry regarding any State
statutes, regulations, or other rules of law enacted or
adopted after such date of enactment pursuant to section
102(a), and the extent to which such statutes, regulations,
and rules comply with section 102(b).
(b) Report.--The Secretary shall submit a report to the
Congress regarding the results of such inquiry by the
conclusion of such 5-year period.
SEC. 105. DEFINITIONS.
For purposes of this title:
(1) Electronic record.--The term ``electronic record''
means a writing, document, or other record created, stored,
generated, received, or communicated by electronic means.
(2) Electronic signature.--The term ``electronic
signature'' means information or data in electronic form,
attached to or logically associated with an electronic
record, and executed or adopted by a person or an electronic
agent of a person, with the intent to sign a contract,
agreement, or record.
(3) Electronic.--The term ``electronic'' means of or
relating to technology having electrical, digital, magnetic,
optical, electromagnetic, or similar capabilities regardless
of medium.
(4) Electronic agent.--The term ``electronic agent'' means
a computer program or an electronic or other automated means
used independently to initiate an action or respond to
electronic records in whole or in part without review by an
individual at the time of the action or response.
(5) Record.--The term ``record'' means information that is
inscribed on a tangible medium or that is stored in an
electronic or other medium and is retrievable in perceivable
form.
(6) Federal regulatory agency.--The term ``Federal
regulatory agency' means an agency, as that term is defined
in section 552(f) of title 5, United States Code, that is
authorized by Federal law to impose requirements by rule,
regulation, order, or other legal instrument.
(7) Self-regulatory organization.--The term ``self-
regulatory organization'' means an organization or entity
that is not a Federal regulatory agency or a State, but that
is under the supervision of a Federal regulatory agency and
is authorized under Federal law to adopt and administer rules
applicable to its members that are enforced by such
organization or entity, by a Federal regulatory agency, or by
another self-regulatory organization.
TITLE II--DEVELOPMENT AND ADOPTION OF ELECTRONIC SIGNATURE PRODUCTS AND
SERVICES
SEC. 201. TREATMENT OF ELECTRONIC SIGNATURES IN INTERSTATE
AND FOREIGN COMMERCE.
(a) Inquiry Regarding Impediments to Commerce.--
(1) Inquiries required.--Within 180 days after the date of
the enactment of this Act, and biennially thereafter, the
Secretary of Commerce, acting through the Assistant Secretary
for Communications and Information, shall complete an inquiry
to--
(A) identify any domestic and foreign impediments to
commerce in electronic signature products and services and
the manners in which and extent to which such impediments
inhibit the development of interstate and foreign commerce;
(B) identify constraints imposed by foreign nations or
international organizations that constitute barriers to
providers of electronic signature products or services; and
(C) identify the degree to which other nations and
international organizations are complying with the principles
in subsection (b)(2).
(2) Submission.--The Secretary shall submit a report to the
Congress regarding the results of each such inquiry within 90
days after the conclusion of such inquiry. Such report shall
include a description of the actions taken by the Secretary
pursuant to subsection (b) of this section.
(b) Promotion of Electronic Signatures.--
(1) Required actions.--The Secretary of Commerce, acting
through the Assistant Secretary for Communications and
Information, shall promote the acceptance and use, on an
international basis, of electronic signatures in accordance
with the principles specified in paragraph (2) and in a
manner consistent with section 101 of this Act. The Secretary
of Commerce shall take all actions necessary in a manner
consistent with such principles to eliminate or reduce, to
the maximum extent possible, the impediments to commerce in
electronic signatures, including those identified in the
inquiries under subsection (a) for the purpose of
facilitating the development of interstate and foreign
commerce.
(2) Principles.--The principles specified in this paragraph
are the following:
(A) Free markets and self-regulation, rather than
government standard-setting or rules, should govern the
development and use of electronic records and electronic
signatures.
(B) Neutrality and nondiscrimination should be observed
among providers of and technologies for electronic records
and electronic signatures.
(C) Parties to a transaction should be permitted to
establish requirements regarding the use of electronic
records and electronic signatures acceptable to such parties.
(D) Parties to a transaction--
(i) should be permitted to determine the appropriate
authentication technologies and implementation models for
their transactions, with assurance that those technologies
and implementation models will be recognized and enforced;
and
(ii) should have the opportunity to prove in court or other
proceedings that their authentication approaches and their
transactions are valid.
(E) Electronic records and electronic signatures in a form
acceptable to the parties should not be denied legal effect,
validity, or enforceability on the ground that they are not
in writing.
(F) De jure or de facto imposition of standards on private
industry through foreign adoption of regulations or policies
with respect to electronic records and electronic signatures
should be avoided.
(G) Paper-based obstacles to electronic transactions should
be removed.
(c) Consultation.--In conducting the activities required by
this section, the Secretary shall consult with users and
providers of electronic signature products and services and
other interested persons.
(d) Privacy.--Nothing in this section shall be construed to
require the Secretary or the Assistant Secretary to take any
action that would adversely affect the privacy of consumers.
(e) Definitions.--As used in this section, the terms
``electronic record'' and ``electronic signature'' have the
meanings provided in section 104 of the Electronic Signatures
in Global and National Commerce Act.
TITLE III--USE OF ELECTRONIC RECORDS AND SIGNATURES UNDER FEDERAL
SECURITIES LAW
SEC. 301. GENERAL VALIDITY OF ELECTRONIC RECORDS AND
SIGNATURES.
Section 3 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C.
78c) is amended by adding at the end the following new
subsection:
``(h) References to Written Records and Signatures.--
``(1) General validity of electronic records and
signatures.--Except as otherwise provided in this
subsection--
``(A) if a contract, agreement, or record (as defined in
subsection (a)(37)) is required by the securities laws or any
rule or regulation thereunder (including a rule or regulation
of a self-regulatory organization), and is required by
Federal or State statute, regulation, or other rule of law to
be in writing, the legal effect, validity, or enforceability
of such contract, agreement, or record shall not
[[Page H11164]]
be denied on the ground that the contract, agreement, or
record is not in writing if the contract, agreement, or
record is an electronic record;
``(B) if a contract, agreement, or record is required by
the securities laws or any rule or regulation thereunder
(including a rule or regulation of a self-regulatory
organization), and is required by Federal or State statute,
regulation, or other rule of law to be signed, the legal
effect, validity, or enforceability of such contract,
agreement, or record shall not be denied on the ground that
such contract, agreement, or record is not signed or is not
affirmed by a signature if the contract, agreement, or record
is signed or affirmed by an electronic signature; and
``(C) if a broker, dealer, transfer agent, investment
adviser, or investment company enters into a contract or
agreement with, or accepts a record from, a customer or other
counterparty, such broker, dealer, transfer agent, investment
adviser, or investment company may accept and rely upon an
electronic signature on such contract, agreement, or record,
and such electronic signature shall not be denied legal
effect, validity, or enforceability because it is an
electronic signature.
``(2) Implementation.--
``(A) Regulations.--The Commission may prescribe such
regulations as may be necessary to carry out this subsection
consistent with the public interest and the protection of
investors.
``(B) Nondiscrimination.--The regulations prescribed by the
Commission under subparagraph (A) shall not--
``(i) discriminate in favor of or against a specific
technology, method, or technique of creating, storing,
generating, receiving, communicating, or authenticating
electronic records or electronic signatures; or
``(ii) discriminate in favor of or against a specific type
or size of entity engaged in the business of facilitating the
use of electronic records or electronic signatures.
``(3) Exceptions.--Notwithstanding any other provision of
this subsection--
``(A) the Commission, an appropriate regulatory agency, or
a self-regulatory organization may require that records be
filed or maintained in a specified standard or standards
(including a specified format or formats) if the records are
required to be submitted to the Commission, an appropriate
regulatory agency, or a self-regulatory organization,
respectively, or are required by the Commission, an
appropriate regulatory agency, or a self-regulatory
organization to be retained; and
``(B) the Commission may require that contracts,
agreements, or records relating to purchases and sales, or
establishing accounts for conducting purchases and sales, of
penny stocks be manually signed, and may require such manual
signatures with respect to transactions in similar securities
if the Commission determines that such securities are
susceptible to fraud and that such fraud would be deterred or
prevented by requiring manual signatures.
``(4) Relation to other law.--The provisions of this
subsection apply in lieu of the provisions of title I of the
Electronic Signatures in Global and National Commerce Act to
a contract, agreement, or record (as defined in subsection
(a)(37)) that is required by the securities laws.
``(5) Savings provision.--Nothing in this subsection
applies to any rule or regulation under the securities laws
(including a rule or regulation of a self-regulatory
organization) that is in effect on the date of enactment of
the Electronic Signatures in Global and National Commerce Act
and that requires a contract, agreement, or record to be in
writing, to be submitted or retained in original form, or to
be in a specified standard or standards (including a
specified format or formats).
``(6) Definitions.--As used in this subsection:
``(A) Electronic record.--The term `electronic record'
means a writing, document, or other record created, stored,
generated, received, or communicated by electronic means.
``(B) Electronic signature.--The term ``electronic
signature'' means information or data in electronic form,
attached to or logically associated with an electronic
record, and executed or adopted by a person or an electronic
agent of a person, with the intent to sign a contract,
agreement, or record.
``(C) Electronic.--The term `electronic' means of or
relating to technology having electrical, digital, magnetic,
optical, electromagnetic, or similar capabilities regardless
of medium.''.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from
Virginia (Mr. Bliley) and the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey)
each will control 20 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Bliley).
General Leave
Mr. BLILEY. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may
have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks
and to insert extraneous material on the bill, H.R. 1714.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Virginia?
There was no objection.
Mr. BLILEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, last year, the Committee on Commerce began an initiative
to better understand the issues surrounding the Internet and electronic
commerce. As part of this initiative, the committee held 11 hearings,
focusing on a variety of electronic commerce issues.
One of the issues that was raised repeatedly at the hearings was the
need to provide enforceability to electronic signatures and electronic
records. This issue is really quite simple: Does an electronically
signed contract formed over the Internet have the same legal validity
as a paper contract with a handwritten signature? Do electronic records
have the same legal effect as a paper record?
In most cases, the answer is either no or uncertain. The lack of
legal certainty for electronic signatures and records has been cited
for many in the e-commerce industry as a potential roadblock for the
growth of electronic commerce. To address this issue, earlier this year
I introduced H.R. 1714, the Electronic Signatures in Global and
National Commerce Act, better known as E-SIGN.
The purpose of this legislation is to provide a uniform nationwide
standard for electronic signatures and electronic records. It creates a
minimum Federal standard to promote interstate commerce, but E-SIGN
recognizes the efforts of States to enact their own uniform laws.
The bill we have before us today is the product of extensive
research, careful examination of the issues, committee hearings and
mark-ups, and extensive negotiations with our colleagues across the
aisle and many other interested parties.
Finally, it is a recognition of a positive step that Congress can
take to help electronic commerce and the new economy continue to grow.
Mr. Speaker, as many of my colleagues know, H.R. 1714 was first
scheduled to be considered on the House floor 2 weeks ago. After
discussions with the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey), I asked
that this bill be withdrawn from consideration so that we could
continue negotiations with him and the gentleman from Michigan (Mr.
Dingell) over a number of outstanding issues.
The amended version of the bill as before us today is the product of
lengthy negotiations with the Committee on Commerce minority and with
the Committee on the Judiciary. As of the middle of last week, I
believed that we had reached a substantive agreement on the text we are
debating today.
Numerous changes were made to the text of the bill on a good-faith
effort by me to address the legitimate concerns raised about the bill
by some of our colleagues. These changes include adding a new opt-in
provision to prevent consumers from being forced to use or accept
electronic records. In addition, we added brand-new carve-outs
prohibiting use of electronic records where those records are necessary
for protection of a consumer's health, safety, and home.
Unfortunately, all of this hard work has fallen victim to partisan
politics. The administration, after publicly supporting the need for
electronic signature legislation, has decided that they must deny
Congressional Republicans a victory on this important technology
legislation.
It is my understanding that last week officials from the
administration met with Members of the Democrat leadership in the House
and persuaded some House Members to withdraw their support from H.R.
1714, despite the agreement we had reached and after many days of
negotiations. This is a shame.
Since that time, many false and misleading charges have been made
against H.R. 1714. The bill has come under attack by opponents of
technology legislation who claim that H.R. 1714 would harm consumers.
Mr. Speaker, these claims are absolutely false. The consumer provisions
contained in H.R. 1714 keep in place all existing consumer protection
laws and fully protect consumers.
Mr. Speaker, it is unfortunate that such an important technology bill
has come under attack. If we want the Internet and electronic commerce
to continue to grow, we must pass H.R. 1714 providing the much needed
legal
[[Page H11165]]
certainty to electronic signatures and records.
H.R. 1714 is one of the most important high technology votes that
this Congress will undertake. If my colleagues support the U.S. high-
tech industry, they will vote yes on this bill.
A vote in support of H.R. 1714 is a vote in support of providing
consumers with greater security and on-line transactions. It is a vote
in support of allowing businesses to provide new and innovative
services online.
I urge all of my colleagues to reject baseless charges against the
bill and support H.R. 1714.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself as much time as I may
consume.
Mr. Speaker, I would just like to say that there really is not a gulf
that exists between Democrats and Republicans over our support for
electronic commerce. That is clearly something that the Committee on
Commerce has been working on for the last 15 years. Every single bill
has been able to be produced with near unanimity. It is clearly a
tribute to our committee that we have been able to work together in
that fashion.
At the full committee level, we worked closely with the majority on a
bill that dealt with electronic signatures; and we really worked
together in a very bipartisan fashion. Since the full committee, the
whole notion of the bill has been broadened out to include records as
well, another issue area that is quite complex but resolvable and one
in which I thought that we had made enormous progress. In fact, I know
we had made enormous progress through the end of last week.
It was clearly our intent to have worked with the majority to, once
again, demonstrate our ability to work in a bipartisan fashion in this
area. It was our hope that, at the end of the day, that would be the
case.
I commend the gentleman from Virginia (Chairman Bliley) for including
a provision allowing consumers to decide whether to opt in to receive
contractual documents in electronic form. This opt-in provision goes a
long way towards ensuring that consumers do not unwittingly forgo
existing protections under State and Federal law.
However, there were other issues that are also in play that include
what kind of notice, whether it be conspicuous or otherwise, that
consumers are entitled to under existing laws to receive these
documents in writing.
So, again, we are quite regretful on this side because we clearly
would like to support a piece of legislation that advances these goals
and could be passed on a bipartisan near-unanimous vote out here on the
floor. But at this point I have to regretfully ask the Members to vote
no.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
{time} 1515
Mr. BLILEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio
(Mr. Oxley), chairman of the Subcommittee on Finance and Hazardous
Materials of the Committee on Commerce.
Mr. OXLEY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this
time, and I rise in strong support of H.R. 1714, the Electronic
Signatures in Global and National Commerce Act.
Commerce on the Internet is projected to grow exponentially to
hundreds of billions of dollars in transactions in just a few years.
Because the access to financial information has improved dramatically,
the Internet poses significant opportunities for more Americans to
become directly involved in the capital markets.
The Subcommittee on Finance and Hazardous Materials, which I chair,
held hearings on this bill and passed it through subcommittee
unanimously. This bill will provide a critical cornerstone for the
electronic financial transactions in the next century.
The securities industry has responded to the new world of e-commerce
with a proliferation of on-line trading brokers. Today, millions of
Americans trade securities and manage their investments on-line. The
cost savings to investors are significant. Full service brokerage can
cost as much as $400 per trade. On-line brokerage costs less than $10
per trade at many firms.
The law needs to keep up with this significant technological
development. H.R. 1714 brings legal certainty to electronic
transactions. The legislation states that contracts shall not be deemed
invalid because they are entered into electronically rather than the
old-fashioned way, by handwritten signature.
One goal of this legislation is to allow customers to open accounts
on line without mandating a physical signature on a brokerage agreement
and mailing it back to the broker. Title III of this legislation
modernizes securities laws by providing that requirements for a writing
can be satisfied by an electronic signature with just a click of a
button.
The legislation does not endorse any particular electronic
authentication technology. We think that the market is the best place
to decide that.
I want to commend the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Bliley) for his
vision and introducing this critical legislation that will benefit the
future of American economy. This is not just a bill that will benefit
the American companies that develop new technology, it will also help
American businesses, large and small, that use technology to develop
and grow their business and provide new and innovative service to
consumers.
Mr. Speaker, I urge Members to support this sound and worthwhile
legislation, one of the key pieces of technology legislation this
Congress will consider.
Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the
gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Vento).
Mr. VENTO. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this
time, and I, without equivocation, rise in strong opposition to this
legislation.
I obviously understand the problem that the committee was trying to
solve and the necessity to deal with electronic or e-commerce, and to
try to provide the legal framework which would be workable for such
transactions to go forward. That is an imperative that needs to be
addressed in terms of this Congress and I am sure in subsequent
Congresses. The fact of the matter is, though, that this bill, while
being dealt with in the Committee on Commerce in the House and the
Committee on the Judiciary, there was a reluctance to in fact provide
the Committee on Banking and Financial Services with an opportunity to
look at the legislation.
That in and of itself would be understandable if in fact the issues
dealt with, in regards to consumer and consumer safeguards, were in
fact properly dealt with in this legislation. This is not a
jurisdictional fight on my part. In fact, I was quite surprised to see
this bill on the calendar a couple of weeks ago. My impression was that
it was a very narrow bill that dealt with some transactions and tried
to, in fact, provide legal sanctity to an electronic signature, which,
as I said, makes some sense. But in the process of going forward and
reviewing the bill more closely, my recognition and understanding of
this bill grew that it encompasses much more than simply an electronic
signature.
In fact, this legislation would undermine some of the fundamental
consumer laws that we have that relate to financial institutions and
agreements, such as truth in lending, so an individual knows what his
proper amount of interest is, and he would receive detailed
information. They could opt for that electronically and, thereafter,
that would be sufficient. Provided that that consumer did not make any
other choice under this bill, they would never receive this as a paper
document, in fact, it would only be an electronic record.
There are all sorts of problems that could go down. The assumption
here is that someone is going to have a computer and be on the Internet
forever; that the format is not going to change; that the printer
works; that there is paper in the printer. There are many other
assumptions that simply do not fit in terms of what the consequence
would be with regards to consumers.
I have already mentioned truth in lending. The Real Estate Sales
Practices Act, RESPA law is another one, the Real Estate Sales
Practices Act, where an individual gets a preliminary set of documents
that estimates what the costs are going to be for closing when a home
is purchased, and then a
[[Page H11166]]
final set of documents at that closing. Again, this paperwork is
absolutely paramount for people to understand some of the most
important transactions that they become involved with with regards to
their financial affairs.
I note that there are some provisions in the law that are accepted,
and some opportunity for States to step in after this bill is enacted,
provided they pass a whole series of legislation or laws that address
specifically some of the concerns that they now have in force and
effect as State laws. The consequence, of course, is all subjected to
the fact that any interpretation of differences between having things
on paper or having an electronic form could be subject to and
considered discrimination under the Federal law that is being written
and proposed on this floor today; so that this State reservation is
much depreciated if in fact it exists at all under this measure.
So the consequences may very well be, in some cases, meaningless
under that interpretation of the law. Furthermore, of course, the
States themselves, the National Conference of State Legislatures, the
Office of State-Federal Relations, has issued a strong objection to
this bill; that it preempts State consumer protections in contract law,
just as I feel it preempts and does not treat properly some of the
Federal laws that occur with regards to truth in lending and RESPA and
many other laws that are in force and effect that represent safeguards
and information and it is imperative that consumers have such
information.
Of course, the out here is that consumers may in fact ``opt out,'' or
``opt in'' to suggest that they do not want this information in a paper
form. But I would suggest to my colleagues that the relationship
between a financial institution granting a loan, granting a mortgage,
and that of a consumer is not exactly equal. That is to say when I go
in for a loan, I am trying to keep that banker happy so that he would
make that loan to me. I think it is pretty well understood that in
order to do that, we want to make it as convenient for the banker and
perhaps for ourselves at that moment. But that moment of convenience
may well result in a lack of understanding with regards to what the
consequences and the costs of these transactions would be to those
individual consumers.
And, of course, throughout this there is this ability of the
individual to waive his or her rights with regards to paper
transactions and records in this measure. No paper record, no
documentation, I think that that is folly. I think it is a big mistake.
I think that based on where we are at today, with the administration
being opposed to this bill, many, many consumer groups voicing their
opposition to it, including the National Consumer Law Center, the
Consumer Federation of America, groups like the United Auto Workers,
Consumer Union, Consumer Action, U.S. PIRG, the National Conference of
State Legislatures, as I mentioned, the National Center on Poverty Law,
and many others opposed to this, I think to bring a bill up like this
on suspension is to make, in a sense, a mockery of the importance of
the subject matter and the ability of Members to shape and form
legislation of this import to the American consumer and to our
constituents.
Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for his generous yielding of time
to me, and I urge opposition to this bill.
Mr. BLILEY. How much time do I have left, Mr. Speaker?
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Petri). The gentleman from Virginia (Mr.
Bliley) has 13 minutes remaining.
Mr. BLILEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from
Northern Virginia (Mr. Davis), the original cosponsor of the bill.
(Mr. DAVIS of Virginia asked and was given permission to revise and
extend his remarks.)
Mr. DAVIS of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to voice my strong
support for H.R. 1714. As an original cosponsor, I am pleased to stand
here today with my colleague, the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Bliley),
to urge my colleagues to vote in favor of legislation that I think is
the critical first step in reconciling our legal system with modern day
technology. The E-SIGN bill is essential to fostering the continued
growth of electronic commerce that is propelling America's economy and
our prosperity in the Information Age.
Electronic commerce has been growing at a tremendous pace, with the
number of Americans with access to the Internet increasing nearly 900
percent since early 1993. In 1998, electronic commerce generated more
than $300 billion in U.S. revenue and was responsible for over 1.2
billion jobs as of 1998. One estimate places the dollar volume of
business-to-business electronic commerce in 1998 at $27.4 billion, and
the projected volume for 1999 is $64.8 billion. Those numbers are
expected to quadruple in the next 2 years alone. Consumer on-line sales
have reached more than $7 billion this year and are expected to exceed
$40 billion by 2002. If the trend continues, it is likely these
predictions are conservative.
The need for legal certainty and uniformity of laws is compelling if
we are to encourage the continued growth of electronic commerce. One of
the biggest barriers to the explosion of electronic commerce as the
marketplace of the 21st century is the lack of certainty surrounding
the legal acceptance of electronic signatures used in conducting on-
line contracts or agreements. With the Internet as the communications
network of the future, increasing its use depends on developing and
retaining consumer and business confidence in this unique problem.
Although 44 States have already enacted legislation that would
recognize digital signatures, the differences among these States and
the lack of legislation in others are an impediment to the growth of e-
commerce because many parties are unwilling to risk entering into
contracts on line without the certainty that those signatures are
legally binding nationally. H.R. 1714 establishes a single standard for
the acceptance of electronic signatures and records and will give both
businesses and consumers the same confidence in the legal validity of
an on-line agreement that they have today in a written, binding
agreement signed by two or more contracting parties.
Another critical feature of this legislation is the balance it
strikes between encouraging growth in electronic commerce and
minimizing the role that the Federal Government plays in the
marketplace. In addition to the gap this measure fills in establishing
a uniform standard, what is equally important is that this legislation
does not entrench specific electronic signature technologies by
dictating what methods will be used for verifying and validating
digital signatures and records. Instead, the E-SIGN bill allows the
parties to set their own procedures for using electronic signatures and
electronic records in interstate commerce. As a result, when the future
brings new technologies it will be the marketplace, not government
regulations, that drives the development of those that succeed.
A vote for this legislation is a vote for technology and a vote for
ensuring the evolution of Internet commerce and the vitality of the
American economy. For this reason, I urge my colleagues to support the
legislation.
Mr. Speaker, I want to take a second, if I can, to respond to some of
the charges coming from the other side that this legislation contains
anti-consumer provisions.
I have heard that this preempts existing consumer protection laws; I
have heard that this legislation will force consumers into electronic
transactions; I have heard this will discriminate against consumers
that do not have computer access. These claims are false.
First, consumers are absolutely free to choose or not choose to enter
into electronic transactions. This bill clearly states that nothing
requires any party to use or accept electronic records or electronic
signatures. This bill simply offers consumers the option, by mutual
consent, to use electronic transactions should both parties determine
that to be their preference.
If a consumer does choose to conduct an on-line transaction, that
consumer is protected by the underlying Federal or State laws governing
that transaction. If a State law requires that a notice or disclosure
be made in writing, then those traditional writings must continue to be
delivered from the consumer. Nothing in this bill will nullify such
existing State consumer protection laws.
For example, if a law requires that a consumer be provided a copy of
a warranty when purchasing an appliance,
[[Page H11167]]
that consumer has to receive a copy of that warranty, whether that
consumer is at a shopping mall or on line. This bill does absolutely
nothing to alter this long-established principle.
However, before a consumer can receive an electronic copy of a
warranty, a consumer has to separately and affirmatively consent to
receive that document electronically. That is, a consumer specifically
must approve of receiving electronic documents in that portion of a
contract or agreement, telling the consumer that documents he or she
should receive electronically may not be buried in the fine print.
{time} 1530
If the consumer wants to receive a traditional paper warranty, he is
absolutely entitled to under this rule and under this bill. But if a
consumer consents to receive such documents electronically, as I think
many of my constituents would like to do, that does not mean that they
may never return to receiving paper documents should they so wish. A
consumer could withdraw the consent to electronic documents at any
time.
There are two main subsections in the consent portion of the bill
that explicitly constitute a consumers assent in the bill. One of these
critical subsections mandates that once the consumer withdrawals his
consent to receive documents electronically, the materials must be
delivered in the traditional paper writing.
Finally, H.R. 1714 requires that electronically delivered documents
must accurately reflect the information agreed to at the time of the
transaction. In addition, any electronic copy of a contract or document
must be able to be printed or saved for future use by a consumer.
In sum, the allegations that H.R. 1714 contains anti-consumer ideas
are unfounded. We have worked very hard throughout the process to reach
consensus with both sides of the aisle and are confident that this bill
represents a solid balance between protecting consumers and entering
into agreements in the electronic arena.
Mr. Speaker, it is vitally important for consumers to have safety,
security and privacy in their online transactions. If consumers do not
feel comfortable using this new technology, they will abandon it.
I believe that the consumer provisions of H.R. 1714 will help
consumers to feel comfortable when conducting online transactions. They
will have the information they need to make an informed decision, and
they will have the right to accept, if they so choose, important
documentation in electronic format.
I urge all of my colleagues to support this important legislation
that will help to promote the growth of electronic commerce and at the
same time protect consumers in online transactions.
Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Speaker, I would inquire of the Chair how much time
is remaining on either side.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Petri). The gentlemen have 11\1/2\
minutes remaining.
Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I would first like to include for the Record the
Statement of Administration Policy on this bill. They oppose it in
specific particulars, and I would like at this point for it to be
included in the Record.
H.R. 1714.--Electronic Signatures in Global and National Commerce Act
The Administration strongly opposes House passage of the
revised version of H.R. 1714, the ``Electronic Signatures in
Global and National Commerce Act.'' The Administration
believes that electronic commerce can provide substantial
benefits to consumers, and seeks to foster the expansion of
this medium. Secure electronic signatures can play an
important role in this area, and the Administration supports
their development and dissemination. However, the
Administration also believes strongly that individuals should
have no fewer consumer protections in the on-line world than
they do in other forms of commerce. That disparity could
undermine consumer confidence in electronic commerce, and
impede the growth of this important new medium of trade.
While some improvements have been made, H.R. 1714 still goes
well beyond what is necessary to facilitate electronic
commerce, and unnecessarily deprives consumers of important
protections.
The Administration believes that Federal legislation is
appropriate to ensure the validity of electronic agreements
entered into by private parties under State law before the
States have an opportunity to enact the Uniform Transactions
Act (UETA). We therefore support the bill's provisions
affirming the legal validity of contracts that are
memorialized and signed in electronic form.
The Administration also believes, as noted, that consumers
must be granted the same protections on-line that they
currently receive off-line under existing laws and
regulations. Unfortunately, many Americans today do not enjoy
reliable and regular access to the Internet. To ensure that
an electronic disclosure will have the same impact upon
consumers on-line as paper disclosure has now, regulators
must have the authority to make sure that electronic notices
and disclosures will actually reach and be understood and
retained by consumers. H.R. 1714 also would allow businesses
to condition credit or other services on a consumers' consent
to notices or disclosures--even when the consumer is
incapable of receiving or retaining them. The Administration
strongly objects to this bill on several grounds.
First, the bill purports to protect consumers by requiring
them to ``separately and affirmatively'' consent to the use
of electronic records. Unfortunately, this provision requires
just an additional paragraph of small print in the form
contract prepared by a business. The notice to the consumer
need not be conspicuous, the consumer need not be told of his
or her right to obtain information in the form required by
law, and the consumer need not be told which specific records
would be affected. More fundamentally, these current law
notice and disclosure requirements were created to protect
vulnerable consumers allowing businesses to redefine the
protections based on ``consent''--something that businesses
may not do with respect to paper transactions--is thus an
open invitation to consumer deception on a broad scale.
Second, the scope of the bill's preemption is unjustifiably
broad. Neither the States nor Federal regulators will have
any ability to eliminate the abuses that may occur when
electronic records are used. With respect to Federal
regulators, the bill by its terms eliminates all such
authority. With respect to the States, the bill's grant of
authority is illusory because it prohibits (in section
102(b)(4)) any State action inconsistent with the bill's
provisions, leaving the States powerless to curb any abuse
that the bill itself fails to prevent.
Third, the bill overrides all Federal and State laws or
regulations concerning notices necessary for the protection
of safety, shelter or health (there is a narrow exception for
notices relating to the termination of utility services,
eviction or foreclosure of a primary residence, or the
termination of health or life insurance). Although the States
are permitted to reinstate such regulations, the bill creates
a gap in protection--in the critical area of safety and
health--for the several years that inevitably will elapse
before these rules can be reenacted. Federal agencies have no
power to reinstate any Federal notice and disclosure
requirements needed to protect health, safety, or shelter.
Fourth, the bill recognizes the importance of preserving
Federal regulations by requiring certain entities (including
banks and other financial institutions) to file or maintain
records in a specified form, but fails to ensure that
regulators' safety and soundness authority will continue to
allow the establishment of minimum standards for computer
security and interoperability. The bill also preempts all
State laws and regulations regarding the maintenance of
records. As a result, entities regulated under state law,
such as insurance companies, will be able to decide for
themselves how to maintain information, thereby undermining
regulators' ability to ensure the soundness of these
institutions and to detect violations of the laws and
regulations governing them.
Fifth, the bill contains a provision (adding section
3(h)(1) to the Securities Exchange Act of 1934) that appears
to preempt State and Federal record and signature
requirements, including those applicable to forms required
under Federal and State tax laws and regulatory statutes such
as ERISA (existing Federal securities law requirements are
exempted from this broad waiver). This means that the
securities industry would have the right to force Federal and
State agencies to accept electronically signed documents
immediately, even if, for example, the agency has not yet
implemented an electronic filing system. Title I of H.R. 1714
appears to preserve filing requirements in Federal
regulations (but not statutes) and in State laws, and we see
no justification for establishing a special preferential rule
for the securities industry.
Finally, the bill contains other technical and drafting
flaws likely to create the very confusion that it is supposed
to eliminate.
Mr. Speaker, this is a very interesting point that we have reached in
the history of electronic commerce. We, in negotiating in good faith
over the last month, had reached a point where most of the good
players, most of the honest business people in the electronic commerce
world had signed off or were close to signing off on protections for
consumers.
Most of them know, all of the good business people know, that the
continued growth of electronic commerce is not contingent upon the
ability of businesses online to be able to perpetrate fraud on
consumers. They know that.
There are some, of course, that like to hide in cyberspace, like to
disappear into this veil of spectrum or fiber optic that makes it very
difficult for the legal authorities to be able to track them down when
they have harmed consumers. And it is at those particular entities that
we would be targeting any consumer protections.
[[Page H11168]]
But again, let it be known that we had reached pretty near agreement
with most of the major players in the industry across the board on
these consumer protections. And that is really all it was, it is to
create the same kind of a balance in cyberspace that exists in the real
world, the same kind of comfort level that people would have to go
online with their money, with their credit card to know that they would
be paid respect by merchants online in terms of the notification, the
records, the confidence that an individual could have.
My hope is that, as we move forward, we will be able to work with the
majority once again and with the outside parties towards establishing
that balance.
I am afraid that the administration is today indicating that they
would be likely not to support, even to veto, this legislation in its
present form.
I would prefer to be negotiating without the administration around.
We do it on a bipartisan basis. We produce legislation. Hopefully, that
is the way in which the bill will proceed from this point on.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. BLILEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from
Utah (Mr. Cannon).
Mr. CANNON. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 1714, the
Electronic Signatures in Global and National Commerce Act. I commend
the gentleman from Virginia (Chairman Bliley) for his work on this
important legislation.
There are still differing opinions between various camps and
committees, but I commend the chairman and the House leadership for
bringing this legislation to the floor.
Mr. Speaker, electronic commerce is expanding exponentially. The
Commerce Department recently estimated that retail sales might exceed
$40 billion by the year 2002 and that all electronic commerce,
including business-to-business activity, may exceed $1.3 trillion in
the next couple of years.
This legislation embraces the model State law called the Uniform
Electronic Transactions Act, UETA for short. Until all 50 States can
act to approve UETA, parallel Federal legislation must be adopted to
fill the commercial gap. It must be possible to sign an agreement
electronically with the confidence which has historically been given to
handwritten signature.
UETA and H.R. 1714 embrace the same principles: first, uniformity
across State lines in order to provide for reliability and
predictability on the part of businesses and consumers alike; second,
technological neutrality to allow for the development of new and more
efficient and less costly delivery systems; third, party autonomy so
that the parties to agreements can decide between themselves how they
wish to verify or enforce electronic agreements just as they now do
with traditional commercial settings.
Mr. Speaker, H.R. 1714 is minimalist in its effects and merely
provides for the legal validity of electronic signatures under
conditions as agreed to by the parties and permitted under State law.
I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.
Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. BLILEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Virginia (Mr. Moran).
Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I thank the distinguished
gentleman from Virginia for yielding me the time.
Mr. Speaker, I want to say to my very good friends from Massachusetts
and Minnesota that I know their hearts are in the right place and they
want to do what they consider to be the right thing for consumers. But
I rise in support of this bill.
A number of things have to be underscored. For one, the signature is
only valid if it is done by mutual consent. Both parties have to agree.
Number two, there is legal recourse in the event of any kind of
fraudulent action. Number three, we have all the accountability that we
have really under hard-cover signatures. Number four, it is already
being done.
So the real question is, do we act now ahead of the curve, or do we
wait and play catch up just as we did with financial services
modernization, which came more than 10 years after the entire financial
services industry had already modernized.
I remember when I was on the Committee on Banking and Financial
Services a decade ago looking at the possibility for modernizing the
financial services industry. We knew it was going to happen anyway and
we should try to influence the process on the side of consumers.
But, no, what we have done over the last 10 years is to stand in the
way of what was considered modernization, and so the industry
modernized itself. And now we finally have a financial services
modernization bill after the fact. And that is what is going to happen
with digitalized signatures. We can stay by the sidelines, watch it
happen, and then after the fact ratify it as though we played a role. I
think we could play a constructive role at the beginning by authorizing
this legislation now.
The fact is that we have now more than half of the households in
every metropolitan area that are online. In Northern Virginia 60
percent of all the households are online. They are doing these
transactions. They ought to be. They are legal. We ought to ratify it.
We ought to be really in front instead of behind the curve. And that is
why I support the bill.
Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from
Michigan (Mr. Dingell).
Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, I hope both the gentleman from Virginia
(Mr. Bliley) and the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Moran) who just spoke
will listen.
This is a remarkable exercise. We have been discussing with our good
friends on the majority side to find out what was in the legislation on
Friday. We thought we were very close to an understanding.
We find today that the bill has been changed. We find that it is
quite different than it was the other day. We find that consumer
protections have been removed, reduced without any consultation with
the minority.
This is most curious. I am not sure whether it can be called good
faith or not. Normally I would not. I can understand the gentleman
being enthused because perhaps he has constituents who likes this. But
I happen to like the truth, and I happen to like fair dealing and I
like to know what I am doing.
If the gentleman knows what he is doing, then he should by all means
support this. He does not, and I do not. And I am not convinced that
the majority knows.
I am convinced of one thing, that it is bad practice and it does not
comport with the traditions of the House of Representatives to
negotiate, come to general understandings, and then to repudiate those
understandings by changing without discussion with the other side. That
is what has happened here.
There is not such enormous haste that we have to vote for something
on a suspension of the rules when we had seen the arrangements made
changed; when we have seen consumer protections eroded, eradicated, and
reduced; and when we have seen a situation where we are told, take it
or leave it, fellows, they have got a two-thirds vote, and they cannot
have any opportunity to make any changes in the content of the
legislation.
That is the issue before us. The issue is should we support the
majority in this high-handed fashion or should we proceed to say,
fellows, we will go for this and we will work together on a piece of
legislation which, in fact, reflects honest negotiation on a matter in
which the two sides are generally in agreement.
My consult to my colleagues on this side of the aisle, Democratic
Members, and indeed to my friends on the other side is let us take
enough time to, first of all, know what we are doing. Second of all,
let us take enough time to deal fairly with each other. Third of all,
if we are going to go ahead and do something which involves significant
legislative action, let us deal fairly with the consuming public. None
of those things have been done here.
Now, I do not know whether this is haste or whether it is bad faith.
I do know that this does not reflect the kind of behavior that I always
thought the House of Representatives should practice. And I do not
think that this represents the kind of conduct that reflects well on
this body or on the majority side.
[[Page H11169]]
I am certainly happy to conclude this matter in an honorable and a
proper fashion. I have to say that the way in which this is handled
does not give evidence of that kind of behavior.
We do not know what is in this legislation. The majority of the
Members who are on that side do not know what is in the legislation. It
is not because we have not worked diligently with the majority, but it
is simply because the majority has chosen in midstride to change the
way the legislation is done.
Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. DINGELL. I yield to the gentleman from Virginia.
Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I thank the distinguished
gentleman for yielding to me so that I can explain to him that I have
no contributor who has ever asked me to support this legislation, just
to clarify for the Record in response to your earlier implication.
Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, I am not talking about
that.
Now if the gentleman could tell me he knows what he is doing, I will
be quite comforted in his assertions to the body.
The simple fact of the matter is this is not the kind of practice
that reflects credit on the House of Representatives.
I am urging my colleagues on this side to reject this legislation. We
will be happy to negotiate with our friends on the Republican side and
come to some conclusion. But negotiation does not mean bringing this
thing up in this kind of haste, not without anyone having proper
notice, without anybody having proper understanding, and with
proceedings, which have gone on somewhere, where the matter has been
changed so that it does not reflect the negotiations which were going
on earlier.
Now, it may be the Republicans are in desperate haste to get out of
here. That is just possible. Frankly, if I were doing the kind of job
they are doing, I would be in desperate haste to get out of here, too,
because I know there are people back home just wanting me to explain to
them just what in the name of common sense I had been doing in
Washington while I was supposedly representing their interests.
In a nutshell, this matter should be rejected. We have time enough to
come back and consider it under more favorable circumstances and under
a process that reflects more credit on the House.
Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Connecticut (Mr. Conyers), the ranking Democrat on the Committee on the
Judiciary.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I would like to join in the comments of the
gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell), the dean of the House of this
body.
Of course we would all like to see passage of an e-commerce bill that
would promote commercial transactions over the Internet. But an e-
commerce bill should not be a grab bag for insurance, financial, or
other special interests to hurt consumers. I think that is the
underlying discussion that has been developed here today.
It should not be a vehicle for Congress to tell the States that all
of a sudden they are unable to enact contract law on their own in the
area of e-commerce. Consumer laws requiring notice and disclosure in
writing are being undermined.
This measure would allow unsavory merchants to trick consumers into
clicking away many of their rights under the laws.
{time} 1545
The measure, H.R. 1714, stands for the proposition that States are
unable to enact their own laws and may not reinstate many additional
consumer protections. It further undermines key Federal and State
regulatory requirements to prevent fraud and abuse. And so an e-
commerce that would be a win-win situation for all, that should make it
easier for consumers to buy goods and services more quickly from a
broader group of businesses and should allow businesses new methods of
reaching more people, doing all these things, frankly, is not a hard
bill to write.
But the bill that the Commerce majority seeks to put on the floor at
this time is not such a bill. Rather than a carefully drawn bill that
balances the equities, the bill unnecessarily undermines key laws that
protect consumers and prevent fraud, all to please the special
interests.
Join me in a negative vote on this measure.
Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 45 seconds to the gentleman from
Minnesota (Mr. Vento).
Mr. VENTO. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this
time.
I just wanted to point out to my colleague from Virginia when he
commented that States can come back and reenact all these laws that are
in fact set aside by this measure, that in fact there are provisions in
the bill that deal with discrimination and other factors which are
screens which may well prevent States from reasserting such
requirements and printed documentation.
I would just point out that there is no assurance in this bill that
the consumer who even has a computer is on the Internet. Once you send
a message out on the Internet like a car warranty recall, the fact is,
for brakes or some other major problem, you have no way of knowing
whether or not that in fact that has been received by an adult or even
the household intended. We know, today, they find us when we have
recalls on the automobiles and that is an important factor and points
out the practical unworkable aspect of this bills policy. These are
just some of the many, many problems that have not been thought through
with this bill. I think it is improper to consider this in this
particular suspension format. If we do not understand all aspects of
it, that is because it has been a moving target for the last 2 weeks as
my colleagues well know. It deserves richly to be defeated today, Mr.
Speaker.
Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
I do so again to urge my colleagues reluctantly to oppose this bill.
It does not have the balance which it needs in order to ensure that
while we advance the electronic commerce revolution which is
transforming the American economy, that simultaneously we are able to
deal with the sinister side of cyberspace, we are able to deal with
those that would engage in the same kind of anticonsumer activity that
we have passed laws in our country over the last 30 years to protect
against in the real world. And so the recommendation that we have to
give is to vote ``no'' on this bill at this time but with the promise
that we are going to work on a bipartisan basis to work out something
which is deserving of the support of every Member of the House.
Mr. BLILEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
First I would like to say I am sorry the gentleman from Michigan is
not on the floor, but we pulled this bill 2 weeks ago in order to work
with the gentleman from Massachusetts and the gentleman from Michigan.
The changes that were made in the bill were made to accommodate their
concerns. I thought on Friday that we had pretty much agreement.
However, the White House came down and met with the minority leader,
and the ranking member then announced that he could not support the
bill. But to say that we have not worked in good faith is a gross
misrepresentation. We have done everything we could to work. But we
only have a few days left in this session and we wanted to get this
bill moving.
I cannot understand why the White House would come down and object at
this time. The bill has not passed over in the Senate. Then we have got
to go to conference. There is plenty of time to work out any concerns
that they might have.
But let me also point out the supporters of this legislation: The
Business Software Alliance, the Securities Industry Association, the
American Council of Life Insurers, Information Technology Association
of America, Information Technology Industry Council, Telecommunications
Industry Association, National Retail Federation, National Association
of Manufacturers, Charles Schwab and Company, DLJ Direct, Investment
Company Institute, America Online, Microsoft, Ford Motor Credit, IBM,
EquiFax, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, and I might add they have
targeted this vote, and a host of others. It is purely voluntary as my
good friend and original cosponsor the gentleman from Virginia (Mr.
Davis)
[[Page H11170]]
pointed out between consenting parties. Nobody is being coerced into
accepting anything. All of the consumer laws are protected.
I ask the Members to support this legislation.
Ms. ESHOO. Mr. Speaker, today the House is taking an important step
to bring our Nation's laws in line with the explosive growth of E-
commerce.
In 1997 my office was the first to establish a virtual district
office in the Congress. I quickly realized my constituents were not
permitted to provide their authorization for any casework with an
electronic signature.
Subsequently, I introduced the first piece of legislation addressing
the issue of electronic signatures during the 105th Congress and
succeeded in passing this bill into law. The legislation requires
Federal agencies to make Government forms available online and accept a
person's electronic signature on these forms.
Following on this success, I introduced a bill in the 106th Congress
to expand the legality of electronic signatures to the private sector.
Today, we're voting on a bill that Chairman Bliley introduced which
attempts to accomplish the same goal as H.R. 1320.
The Congress must ensure that there are no roadblocks impeding the
growth of E-commerce. E-commerce is expected to generate over $1.3
trillion worth of business by 2003. Our laws should not impede this
staggering growth so we must act to bridge the gap between now and the
time when every State has passed an updated form of the Uniform State
Law Code.
This legislation encourages States to pass a uniform law so that our
Nation's consumers and businesses will not have to face 50 different
sets of regulations to engage in E-commerce. I am concerned about the
electronic records provisions in this bill, and hope that with further
work, these concerns will be ironed out by conferees.
For these reasons, I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 1714. Our
Nation's economy will be the beneficiary.
Mr. BLILEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Barton of Texas). The question is on the
motion offered by the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Bliley) that the
House suspend the rules and pass the bill, H.R. 1714, as amended.
The question was taken.
Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX and the
Chair's prior announcement, further proceedings on this motion will be
postponed.
____________________